There are have been a numberof Unions. First with Scotland, and then with Ireland. Each
time each of
the “parties” (aka “Parliaments”) have agreed Treaties, in order
to create a
thing ... eventually called “The United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland”.

(The Union with Scotland created the “United
Kingdom of Great Britain” part).

Now, what that original Act (i.e. Treaty) of
Union (with
Scotland) said was (Article 4):

That the Subjects
of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union
have full
Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any
port or place
within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations
thereunto belonging.
And that there be a Communication of all other Rights,
Privileges and
Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either
Kingdom except
where it is otherwayes expressly agreed in these Articles.

Which
means that a
Scotsman & and Englishman should ALWAYS have the same,
fundamental, Rights …
FOR EVER!!!

However, the Union did agree that Scotland
should retain it’s
own LEGAL system. Note: LEGAL system … NOT “Law”.

“Law” being the basis of equality (however
derived by “legal”
or "lawful" means) between the Scots & the English.

Now, here’s the interesting bit, Article 25:

That all Laws and
Statutes in
either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent
with the Terms
of these Articles, or any of them, shall from and after the
Union cease and
become void, and shall be so declared to be by the respective
Parliaments of
the said Kingdoms.

Whaaaazat????
In 1707
the Treaty of Union talked about “Laws” AND “Statutes”????

Now,
why would it do
that, if they were one and the same thing?

The
answer is: They
KNEW HOW TO WRITE STUFF in 1707.

They
knew that there
was a difference.

That
the Scottish
LEGAL system, based on its own Statutes, and the English LEGAL
system is based
on ITS own Statutes.

AND
THAT “LAW” IS A
DIFFERENT THING!

(Because
it’s
decided by Juries, of course!)

Mark
has had quite a
bit of FUN arguing this in Scotland. He writes:

“The
'Laws' and
'Statutes' was one of many things I used in my court case. They
are completely
confused by this stuff. They believe statutes are law but find
themselves
contradicted by a document dating back to when they believe
people were
ignorant peasants. I wish I had a mirror to offer them at that
point”.

I’m looking forward to similar fun, when my
chance comes.

“They believe statutes are law but
find themselves
contradicted by a document dating back to when they believe
people were
ignorant peasants” ... LOVE IT!

Mark then goes on to say:

“Due to the Acts of Union
it is not
possible for an English or Scottish 'law' to be passed that
confers 'more' or
'less' to either people. All must benefit equally, otherwise it
could never be
a union of equals. They
knew what they
were doing when they wrote it back then.”

Yes … they knew far more than the tossers we
are supposed to
“look up to” today.

Mark also points out, an interesting
consequence (my
underlining):

“The
two
parliaments had to ratify the treaty (so called). The irony being that treaties can not stand the
dissolution of
the parties to the treaty. Leading to the question,
was there ever a
treaty in the first place? Apparently none have been found.
Curious.”

Logically
and rationally, no merger (or
union) can ever occur.

Because,
as soon as it does … the original
parties to the agreement no longer exist.

And, if
that’s the case, they could not have
created a treaty in the first place.

Chicken
& egg.

Nevertheless,
interesting about “Law” & “Statutes”
being written separately in a document that is 307 years old.

Just proves: “The
old ‘uns are still the best ‘uns!”

Vxxx

PS Don't ask me about "Scottish Independence"! Don't ask Mark,
either. He remains as perplexed at the shite they talk about, in
his office. As he says "They consider themselves to be adults,
but they have no idea what 'Sovereignty' means".